|

|

|
An Archaeologist's Perspective (Q&A)
Following the broadcast of "Secrets of Lost Empires: Obelisk"
On May 19 1998, archaeologist Mark Lehner fielded questions
sent in by Web site visitors about obelisks and ancient Egypt
in general. Take a look, and see what Lehner had to say. If
you'd like to send in your own theory, or see what people are
suggesting now that our obelisk team is back in Egypt on their
second attempt, visit
"How Would You Do It?"
Complete Questions and Answers |
List of Questions
Question:
In the NOVA about Stonehenge, the A-frame you made had the
ropes that the volunteers pull higher than the ropes connected
to the rock, and in the NOVA about the obelisk, you had the
ropes at the same level. Wouldn't it be easier if you had the
A-frame like in the NOVA about Stonehenge? ~Justin
Answer:
Yes, it would. That's one of the lessons we learned out of
both these operations. If the A-frame had been higher, and in
fact even if the pullers in the obelisk operation had been
higher, we might have gotten more lift out of the pole. As it
was in the obelisk operation, the pole wasn't getting much
lift at all, it was actually probably pulling the obelisk down
into the turning groove.
Question:
Will it be possible to hear a discussion of the obelisk
containing the code of Hammurabi? Is the obelisk containing
the code of Hammurabi still in existence? ~J.T.
Answer:
The code of Hammurabi is on a much smaller obelisk. This is
not my area of specialty, but it's not what they raised in any
quantity. It contains cuneiform text.
Question:
Would the Egyptians have used elephant power to raise the
obelisk? They were excellent builders and had a great
understanding of mechanics. It seems to me that elephants
would be cheaper and less troublesome than slaves, as well as
pound per pound much more powerful than men. ~Marshall
Answer:
No, the evidence is that elephants did not exist in Egypt
after the late Dynastic period or into the Dynastic period,
say after 2900 B.C. So they were never common, although they
may have been brought in by pharaohs like Thomoses III. He
also created a zoo in the Karnak temple. Elephants were never
common in Egypt like they are in India today, so they were
never part of the construction. It is the case that cows were
used and we do have evidence of that, but in moving something
as big as the obelisk it was most probably people power.
Question:
What was the general attitude of the 200 men who were working
on site, the common man's attitude to this project, if you
will? ~James
Answer:
Well, the attitude of the 200 men working on our site was one
of great enthusiasm. They were really into this operation.
There was a real team spirit. I don't know if you can notice
it in the film, but when the obelisk was successfully tipped
and then slid down into a turning groove, the men from Luxor,
who are mostly around the obelisk itself, began chanting
"Luxor, Luxor, Luxor!" And all the men from Aswan, who were
mostly the pullers, began chanting "Aswan, Aswan, Aswan!" So
there was a real esprit de corps, a real camaraderie among the
team. It was almost like a great sports event where they had
won a championship.
Question:
What was the time period you had to raise the obelisk?
~Grayson
Answer:
Well, I think all told, the whole production was about three
weeks. So a good week of that was taken up with preparations
of various kinds. To raise the obelisk itself, we maybe had
two weeks. And so it was a very short time period indeed.
That's why we think with more time, we probably would have
successfully gotten it up, but unfortunately, modern
production schedules don't match ancient pharaohs' schedules.
Question:
Why not use a pulley on level ground to gain a mechanical
advantage for the pullers? ~Travis
Answer:
Well, we often get questions of why we don't use pulleys in
pyramid building or obelisk raising, and one very critical
piece of information here was given by Roger Hopkins on the
production. He said a pulley is only as good as a wheel is as
good as its axle. In other words, they didn't have iron or
steel at this period, and for a pulley really to work, you
need a very strong axle. A pulley is essentially a wheel. For
wooden pulleys or various other kinds of pulleys it just
didn't work. They probably had something like the pulley as
early as the Middle Kingdom, several hundred years before the
New Kingdom, but it was not as powerful as it needed to be if
they made it out of steel or iron.
Question:
Why not anchor the base in the groove stone with a team
pulling in the opposite direction to the lift? ~Kevin
Answer:
Well, if I understand the question correctly, this is
essentially what Martin Isler had envisioned, that you
basically bring the obelisk up to the turning groove and you
park it in the turning groove, and then you have men pulling
it to an upright position after it's been leveled high enough
so the pull has some effect. That's one of the two principal
ideas for how you raise an obelisk. And there are definite
problems with that. It worked for Martin Isler's obelisk,
which was two to three tons, but for a 450-ton obelisk, you
don't have that much more room to do levering on the point end
of the obelisk. And as you saw on the film, we have a great
deal of difficulty just getting a 40-ton obelisk levered high
enough so that the pull has some effect. It would have been
exponentially more problematic for a 450-ton obelisk.
Question:
Do you think having more people pulling to try to erect the
obelisk would have made a difference? ~Andrea
Answer:
Well, I don't think more people pulling would have made a
difference, unless we had gotten them to a higher platform,
where the pull had more lift, or unless we had used our
A-frame on a higher platform so that the ropes would have had
more lift. Otherwise, I think what was happening in our
situation is that the pullers were simply pulling the obelisk
down towards the obelisk rather than getting their lift out of
the pull.
Question:
Have you considered a rising road bed level on the lever side
of the obelisk, also decreasing the height of the A-frame and
extending ropes, as the pharaohs had many more than 200
willing participants? ~Pete
Answer:
Well, it certainly is true that they had more willing or
unwilling participants than 200. They could have had as many
participants as they wanted. The thing is, the whole arena of
operation is restricted by the space that is there in front of
the great temple pylons or gateways, like in front of the
Luxor temple. But any number of configurations can be tried,
it just has to fit within the space available, and that
includes the number of pullers. For example, in the Luxor
temple, where Ramses raised two of the biggest obelisks of all
times, and only one remains today, it is not that far from the
temple to the river. And we know that the men were pulling on
the river side because the turning groove is on the land side.
So you've got to take all these different factors into
consideration, and they set limitations for how many men, the
length of the roadway, and therefore, the height of the
roadway and so on.
Question:
How many finished obelisks are there in existence now? Were
they cut from the same type of stone? Is there any indication
about who the sculptors were? ~Jeunesse
Answer:
Well, I simply don't know off the top of my head what the
total number of finished obelisks may be in Egypt today,
although that might be known in the book, "Obelisks, the
Skyscrapers of Ancient Egypt." I'm sure we could look it up.
The obelisks are mostly of red granite. But there are a number
of obelisks from other types of stone. There are a few
limestone ones, sandstone ones, and some quartzite obelisks.
The makers of the obelisks, that is the overseers in charge
and the craftsmen, never signed their work, and this was
usually the case in ancient Egypt, that the fine craftsmen,
whatever the masterpiece may be, including a masterpiece
statue of a pharaoh, they never signed their work. It was not
so much the creation of any one of a particular artist, it was
more of divine object that was created on behalf of this
divine king. It is the case that there are only about four or
five obelisks still standing in Egypt in their original sites.
Question:
You need to raise the obelisk on a ramp to a height where the
center of gravity is at its final height, then secure a frame
at the center of gravity, which can be used to pivot the
obelisk, which is now balanced at its center of gravity to a
vertical position. ~Richard
Answer:
Well, that's a good suggestion. I think what the questioner is
suggesting is that the frame be actually on the obelisk side
of the erection pit rather than the A-frame that we put on the
pulling side of the erection pit. Now, if you had some kind of
a frame or a windblast kind of tying off of the obelisk, like
Martin Isler had, then you could just simply pivot it, you
know. That could work. I would be interested in the details of
how the frame would be composed. Would it be wood? How would
the turning be effected? Again, we don't have pulleys, we
don't have cogs, we don't have gears. So it's an interesting
suggestion, we need more details.
Question:
How different was the scale of the pyramid building from the
scale of the obelisk quarrying and raising? ~Mark
Answer:
The scale of pyramid building is totally different than that
of obelisk raising, especially if you're talking about the
early period of pyramid building, the first three or four
generations. That's when they built the gigantic pyramids.
That was a humongous task. It was building a geological
structure with human power, you know, something on the scale
of a small mountain. The obelisk is more of a single object
and a single event. The obelisk is no less daring, because you
have this huge piece of stone, a solid piece of stone, and of
course, if you've already put the decoration on and in the
erection attempt the whole thing breaks, it's a lot of labor
wasted. And so it's a very daring kind of operation. Whereas
the pyramid of course is many small operations, many blocks
over the better part of probably a generation. The obelisk is
a single daring feat of engineering.
Question:
Don't you think that they would have come up alongside of the
river in order to allow the pullers have the room to move it
and then do the hole under the stones supporting it by three
stones or so? You could then build a boat or many boats under
the stone and let it float out into the river and reverse
operation into the end. ~Zoe
Answer:
Intuitively we all feel that some kind of ballast and boat
operation must have been involved in both loading the obelisk
and unloading it. That is, where you use water, water seeking
its own level. For example, Roger's idea, which didn't get
very well illustrated in the film because of his problems with
his little model sinking and so on, his idea was if you, for
example, had a slipway and you brought the boat loaded with
the obelisk into the slipway and the obelisk was loaded on
these cross-beams, you could bring the boat in, put ballast on
the boat so that you sink the boat down, the cross-beams catch
on the edges of the slipway and, therefore, you've off-loaded
the boat. You simply pull the boat out from underneath the
obelisk. Roger wanted the obelisk to be loaded in a similar
operation, but reversed, where you take balance lost off the
boat, the boat floats up on the water until it lifts up on the
obelisk on his cross-pole. When you actually try these things,
there are numerous difficulties, and the boat boondoggle is
something we want to re-examine when we go back to try to do
an obelisk.
Question:
Is there any symbolism involved with the shape of the obelisk?
~Mary
Answer:
Well, there is a symbolism involved in the shape of the
obelisk. It probably symbolizes the rays or shaft of the
sunlight coming down. It's interesting, at the top of the
hatchet's obelisk, she shows herself, Themoses III, giving
gifts up. There's the inscription that the upper part of her
obelisks were gilded with electrum, a combination of silver
and gold. So basically, what you had is the top of the
obelisk, where she shows herself in the company of the gods,
gilded with blazing medal, so it was actually like the sun
reflected off this electrum. So the symbolism of course is a
shaft of light that reaches up to where any pharaoh is
co-mingling with the divine beings. There's probably also...
it's a little bit more convoluted and indirect, but there's
also more a phallic observation relating to the sun God Othom.
Question:
Instead of using pullers to have to work over their heads, why
don't you use a technique called a Spanish Windlass? The rope
is anchored at some strong fixed object. By then twisting a
looped rope, a tremendous pulling force can be applied over
the A-frame by a few people. ~Bernard
Answer:
Well, Bernard, we did actually use a Spanish Windlass in
Martin Isler's technique, not so much to pull the stone
horizontally into an upright position, but if you look closely
at Martin Isler's position in the film, he had Spanish
Windlasses going off to either side of the obelisk, where the
rope was twisted after it, was tied around the butt end of the
obelisk, where it was parked in the turning groove. Isler used
this to control the movement of the obelisk from left to
right, that is, so that it would not move to either side as it
was being lifted. So that, as it was being lifted, it was held
firmly in place right on its pedestal, right with one edge
right in the turning groove. To use a Spanish Windlass
actually to move the obelisk horizontally or to raise it
upright is an interesting suggestion. But it implies a very
long, a very long length of rope, a lot of twisting, and some
kind of a platform where all this can be carried out.
Question:
How did you calculate the number of men needed to man the
ropes? ~Grant
Answer:
You know, I can't answer that specifically, because basically
we left it up to Ali el-Gasab. Others have asked why we didn't
use equations—how many men were needed to raise the
obelisk and so on? Ali, who is no longer with us in this world
because he passed away this last year, but Ali was literate,
and he had worked with heavy monuments all his life, at least
40 years. He knew how to figure how many men he needed, and he
had a specific way of calculating how many pullers were
required and how many were required on the obelisk-side of the
erection pit. Just exactly what his calculations were, I can't
tell you, but we know that Ali was calculating.
Question:
Why were there no women involved? ~Kathy
Answer:
Well, actually, there were women involved. Cheryl Haldane, who
was in the film, is an archaeologist from Texas A&M, and I'm
not sure if the question is aside from Cheryl Haldane, why
there were no women involved in our production, or why there
were no women involved in ancient Egypt? Those are two
different questions of course.
Question:
Why not use a variation on hydraulics? If the ropes were
fastened down, isn't it possible to wet them, tighten them,
let them dry and shorten, place solid rock under the slightly
lifted obelisk and repeat? After all, it's the desert. ~John
Answer:
Well, you know, tricks like that, wetted ropes, dry ropes and
so on, I wouldn't put it past the ancient Egyptians to have
used any kind of technique such as John suggests. It was
amazing to us to see how Ali el-Gasab's men tried anything and
everything to get that obelisk to move, get it to tip and then
get it upright. They tried rollers, they greased the rollers.
It was very by crook or by hook. As I said earlier, Ali did
much calculating, how many men he needed. As you saw in the
film, he made a scale model of it, once the operation was
under way, they just attacked with a ferocity and with a
spirit that really has astounded us all. And anything and
everything went at that point. Now, if wetting the ropes,
allowing them to dry and wetting them again worked, they would
have used it, any trick they could have used to get the job
done.
Question:
The process so far seems correct, however, I might suggest the
use of timber braces anchored to the ground and lift the
obelisk from the backside as we do in the "barn raising"
method. ~Len
Answer:
That's a very interesting suggestion. Not being Ali el-Gasab
and not being the engineer on the project, it sounds good to
me. I'd like to know more details.
Question:
Did you try the counterweight idea that was suggested by the
owner of the quarry? ~Jeff
Answer:
No, we didn't try the counterweight idea that was suggested by
Hamada, the owner of the quarry. It looked good. It looked
good in his model. The problem with counterweight methods in
obelisk raising or pyramid raising is you have to deal with
the weight that's commensurate with the obelisk or with the
heavy stone blocks in pyramid building, and it's almost as
though you're doubling your operation, because somehow you
have to get the counterweight way up there, too, in Hamada's
method, in a height in its own sandbox, where then, when you
release the sand, the counterweight sinks and you release the
obelisk. So in counterweight, the methods for lifting pyramid
stones or obelisks, you have to deal with the problems of
getting the counterweight itself to a significant height so
that it can then sink and raise it to the height that you
want, raise and sink the weight that you want to raise. In
both pyramid building and obelisks, you're kind of faced with
the same problems, raising the original weights itself.
Question:
Why didn't workers stand on the levers when they became too
high to reach in order to utilize their weight to increase the
downward force on the lever? ~Peter
Answer:
Peter, that's a very interesting observation, and I've seen
men do that. I've seen them climb up on to these heavy levers,
stand on them. But we were using levers the size of railroad
ties, although maybe twice as long. They were the same
thickness as a railroad tie, and it wasn't just the fact that
the levers were getting too high for the men to grab hold of,
it was also that maybe six inches from their butt end, the
levers are snapping like toothpicks. And this is a very
sobering observation, because our obelisk is 40 tons. And yet,
given the shape of obelisks, a 400-ton obelisk is not going to
give you that much more room to lever, and you're not going to
be able to use levers that are that much bigger, because men
can't get ahold of them. So if our railroad tie-sized levers
are snapping like toothpicks on a 40-ton obelisk on its point
end, what's going to happen on a 450-ton obelisk, even if the
men were standing on them? Of course it's not—it's kind
of a precarious place to stand up on a lever. Even if they
were standing on them, levering begins to look a little bit
inadequate to the job of the very big obelisks that we know
were successfully erected by the ancient Egyptians.
Question:
What other obstacles did you and your colleagues face, not
including the problems of transporting and testing? ~Aaron
Answer:
That's a very good question. The film focuses on transporting
and raising, and mostly on raising. One of the big problems we
faced, which must have been a problem faced by every ancient
overseer, was finding a big enough patch of granite where we
could quarry an obelisk, even with modern means, without there
being fissures and cracks in it. It was a hard job just to
find a big enough patch of uniform granite that we could take
out a 40-ton obelisk. Think how much they must have searched
and done trial trenches and probes to find a good patch of
granite where they could get a 400, 300-ton obelisk. That's
just one problem. We spent many, many days, actually weeks,
looking through the quarries to find a good patch of granite.
Question:
Wouldn't a series of A-frames beginning at the top of the
obelisk and being succeeded by a taller A-frame, as the first
for the job and so forth, cement the levers that could be
filling in the space behind the obelisk with rock and dirt to
the point at which the center of gravity is over the base and
the obelisk was standing by itself? Would this work? ~Lee
Answer:
Well, Lee must be an engineer, because Lee has just
anticipated what some of the engineers we've already consulted
have suggested for Obelisk II, that with a series of A-frames
you're getting a series of poles, almost like when you lever a
heavy weight and you get purchase with your lever, you get
some rise out of the load, you secure that rise by putting in
rocks underneath it, then you get more purchase, more leverage
and so on. This has already been suggested, a series of
A-frames, and it's one of the things they're going to try in
Obelisk II.
Question:
Would it be possible to create a supporting cage-like
structure at the bottom of the obelisk made from wood? This
would have to be strong enough to withstand an impact into the
bottom of the pit. Once in, with the extra angle while the men
were pulling, it could be set on fire, a wood version of the
sand pit. The only problems I see are the speed of the barn
and how much heat the obelisk could withstand. Good luck.
~Sarita
Answer:
That's an amazingly creative suggestion. I'm not sure what
would happen in that case. One thing I would just note is that
heat will spoil the surface of granite, and we showed that in
the film, where Roger started dressing the surface of granite
by creating a fire over it, and you see those big flakes pop
off. So that's one thing you might have to worry about. You
might have to worry about the heat creating cracks through the
granite as well. Cracks are feared by every granite worker.
Even our 40-ton obelisk, as we were pulling it out of the
quarry, a very hairline crack appeared and every worker
noticed it. Quarry owner Hamada went into a panic, and so I
don't think he'd want to do anything, including heat, and the
differential between heat and cold that would cause the
granite to crack.
Question:
It might be easier to slide the obelisk down a concrete ramp
to the anchor stone rather than drop it, using sand and
creating guess work. That way, a short, lightweight wooden
test obelisk could be used to work out the proper alignment
between the obelisk and anchor stone. It might also be easier
to create a raised hill behind the obelisk so that the A-frame
would rest above the obelisk. The pullers would be on the down
slope of this hill. What do you think? ~Geoff
Answer:
Well, the last part of Geoff's suggestion sounds like the kind
of thing we were trying in a very cursory way at the end of
the project with the A-frame. And it's a good suggestion. I do
think that the pullers have to be on a ramp that's high enough
and the A-frame has to be high enough that they're getting
lift out of the pole, something that we've talked about in
other questions.
Question:
Could not triangular wedges in alternation—small to
large, with the small making room for the large—be used
from the rear to lift the obelisk? ~Tim
Answer:
This suggestion of Tim's is really a good and very insightful
suggestion. When we were doing "This Old Pyramid," we found
that wedges were one of the most useful tools of all. We
actually recreated ancient Egyptian wedges, where the ancient
Egyptians put handles on the wedges. And there's nothing
better when you've gotten a little bit of lift out of a
three-ton block than sticking a wedge in, and you can stick a
wedge in underneath to secure your lift, the lift you've
gotten out of it when you have a handle on it. And also, when
we were moving the obelisk that weighed 40 tons, the obelisk
was so heavy it was literally crushing the rather thin rollers
that we were using. One of the ways that the workmen would get
some lift out of the obelisk is to get the pressure up off the
rollers to pound in wedges with sledgehammers. Wedges are just
marvelous little things, and it's a very good suggestion. I
think it's something they probably used in an ad hoc way, not
to raise the obelisk to its final height or to a height where
they could pull it upright, but wedges are very powerful
little tools and very handy for a lot of lesser operations.
Question:
Weren't slaves used in Egyptian times to move the obelisks?
~Matt
Answer:
Well, were slaves used? It is the case there was slavery in
ancient Egypt. Mostly slaves were domestic slaves, though, in
households. The image we have from biblical stories and so on,
of masses of slaves doing great labor projects, is probably
not very accurate. Or the image we have, for example, from the
film "The Ten Commandments," where the masses of the Hebrew
slaves are raising the obelisks and doing other tasks is
probably not accurate. There were specialists who were
involved in these operations, but it is the case that
prisoners of war could be assigned to working the granite in
Aswan. And we do know that being sent to the granite was a
punishment for various kinds of crimes. When it actually comes
to raising the obelisk and pulling it, they probably would not
have assigned that operation to slaves. Slaves would more have
been involved in the quarries for shaping the granite, that
very hard, pounding work. The actual raising of the obelisk,
when it was successfully quarried, after it had been
successfully transported to the religious capital, and after
it had been decorated with its hieroglyphs, was certainly not
entrusted to people who were enslaved, it was probably
entrusted to specialists and workers who had the same kind of
spirit that our men showed from Aswan and Luxor.
Question:
When are you going back to Egypt to try this again? ~Becky
Answer:
Well, the plans now call for us being back in Egypt with
another team down in Aswan in February and March for our
second attempt of raising the obelisk, using ancient Egyptian
tools, techniques and operations.
Question:
Were the pyramids built at around the same time as the
obelisk?
Answer:
No. In fact, the gigantic pyramids that are most popular in
most people's imaginations were a good 1,200, 1,300 years
before the giant obelisk was raised. That shows you how long
Egyptian civilization lasted. The pyramids belonged to the Old
Kingdom, and the obelisks belong to the New Kingdom. In
between Tutankeman and the pyramid of Kufu is more than 1,200
years.
Question:
Did your experience trying to raise the obelisk, but failing,
give you any ideas about how to do it better? ~Karl
Answer:
Yes, it gave us many ideas about how to do it better. For one
thing, if we had had a higher ramp which is to say a deeper
turning pit, we would have gotten more lift from the tipping
operation. That is to say that when we brought it over the
edge of the ramp and tipped it down into the pit, and then
slid it down that one side of the pit down to the turning
groove, if our ramp had been higher on that side we would have
gotten more lift out of the tipping operation. If the ramp had
been higher on the other side, we would have gotten more lift
out of the pulling. And if we'd used an A frame and the ramp
had been higher on the other side it would have achieved more
lift as well.
Question:
Have any obelisks ever fallen over? ~Mary
Answer:
Of a series of obelisks that once stood in the great Karnak
temple, eight or nine must have fallen over or have been
removed. Engelbach, the British engineer who wrote the major
study of the unfinished obelisk at Aswan chided the ancient
Egyptians for not having better foundations underneath the
pedestal on which the obelisk sat and he blamed this for some
of the obelisks having fallen over. In addition to obelisks of
course being forcibly removed, like the one in front of the
Luxor temple that was the mate to the one that still exists, a
whole number of obelisks must of fallen over (about eight or
nine). It's thought that one of the principle reasons they
fell was earthquakes and not so much the bad foundations that
Engelbach pointed to. We know that there's been at least one
earthquake if not more that caused considerable damage in the
Karnak temple, not just to the obelisks but to the giant
pillars and architrazes.
Question:
How was the bottom side of the obelisk (attached to the
quarry) freed from the granite? ~Angela
Answer:
The first question we know the answer to with a fair degree of
probability because we have spines of—if not
obelisks—long granite blocks that have been snapped off.
The evidence from the quarries is that just as they channeled
around the obelisk simply by pounding the granite to create
these separation trenches or channels, so also they channeled
in underneath. That must have been a really difficult
operation. It was difficult enough for workers to sit in the
trench pounding all day as narrow as it is (as you saw in the
film), but to actually start pounding the face of the granite
in underneath the obelisk to free it up must have been really
difficult, but that seems to be what they did. When the two
sides came close enough so that there's simply a spine of
natural rock still attached, then they got great levers and
probably levered from one side to snap the obelisk off that
spine. The evidence is that there are spines that exist in the
quarries where they've snapped off blocks after channeling in
and under them from both sides.
Question:
A smaller version of the obelisk had been raised by draining
sand from underneath it. If there were stops in the movement
of the obelisk, such as poles placed in layers through the
sand, wouldn't that solve some of the problems in positioning
the obelisk at the right point to meet the turning groove?
~Stacy
Answer:
Stacy, you know that might. In all fairness, we didn't do a
completely fair test of the sandbox method. The sandbox idea
was first suggested by Engelbach, which as you know, weighs
about 1168 tons. Engelbach's idea was not that it would be a
box, but that it would be more like a funnel. And the bottom
of the funnel would be the same size as the base of the
obelisk itself so that the obelisk would have nowhere to go
but down to that base. It wouldn't be able to get askew and
stuck like it did in Roger's sandbox. The sides of the funnel
would have been sloping and smooth, and I don't know that you
would have needed stops. One of the main problems with
Engelbach's sandbox or sand funnel is that the obelisk would
get stuck even more than it did in Roger's sandbox. Of course
then, you also have the problem, as Hamada pointed out, of men
underneath the very heavy obelisk, 450 tons or whatever,
taking the sand out. Our sandbox, anyway, in the film, was not
a completely true test of what Engelbach was suggesting.
Question:
Somebody recently proposed that the ancient Egyptians might
have harnessed wind power to raise obelisks, using giant
airfoils or kites. What do you think of that notion?
~Rosemary
Answer:
I don't think it's very likely that the Egyptians harnessed
wind power to raise obelisks. There's no suggestion in the
historical or archaeological record that they created such
contraptions or that they had the technology that would have
been required for aerial lifting devices like
that—something powerful enough to raise something as
heavy as 300 or 400 tons.
Question:
The same small canal that was built to float the stone to the
site could be used to fill a large pool that is built higher
as the water level rises. Animal skin bladders attached to the
obelisk would gently float the stone upright. This method
would "baptize" the stone in the holy water of the Nile as
well as provide an aqueduct and reservoir for the workers and
city. It's just a theory but it seems plausible. ~Dustin
Answer:
It was probably beyond the Egyptian's hydraulic technology to
have a series of locks that would raise the obelisk on water
or just raise the water itself as high as they needed to get
it to set it upright. Water lifting was always very limited in
ancient Egypt from the known evidence. In the Old Kingdom
pyramid age, water lifting was by means of shoulder poles with
pots slung over the pole. By the 18th dynasty, by the New
Kingdom, that is by the time of obelisks they could lift water
with something called a chaduf which is a huge lever with a
water receptacle on one end and a counter weight on the other.
By that means, they lifted water from canals into fields so
that they could be perennially flooded. But a system of locks
like those that pass ships through great canals like the
Panama canal or through the barrages in Egypt today were
probably beyond the means of the ancient Egyptians. The water
displacement would also have to be significant to float that
obelisk and that's a factor in how they transported it on the
boat but to do it with animal hides you'd have to have
considerable displacement and it's very unlikely that they had
those means so that they did it in that way.
Question:
How did 400 tons of granite get on to the sled? ~Adam
Answer:
This question reflects one of those operations that we tend to
overlook when we launch into programs like building pyramids
and raising obelisks, trying to replicate the ancient
Egyptians' technology. It is indeed very difficult as we found
out in "This Old Pyramid" to load a sled with a block of stone
weighing many tons. The first time we tried this we rolled a
stone over to the sled and then onto the sled but because it
didn't land on the sled on dead center, it actually pushed the
sled down into the sand and the sled was sticking up into the
air and the stone of course was chewing the wood and
splintering it. So how you load something like 400 tons or 456
tons, the weight of the heaviest obelisks that we know (other
than the unfinished ones) onto the wooden sled is a very good
question and it would be excellent to try to replicate that in
our next shot at doing an Egyptian obelisk. One idea is you
could tie the sled to one side of the obelisk, so that the
obelisk is firmly lashed to the sled and then you could simply
turn the whole assembly, sled and obelisk over very carefully
and slowly by levering. But it must be a delicate operation to
do that with so much weight and not to completely crush and
splinter the sled.
Question:
I'm just curious why an engineer was not included on the
erection team. In 30 minutes I calculated all the forces and
geometries necessary to raise the obelisk using sophomore
level engineering skills. I estimate that with two wood
structures (similar to the one used in the team's last ditch
attempt) and a platform capable of supporting 1/4 the obelisks
weight the obelisk could be lifted with between 150 and 300
men (assuming each could generate a pull equal to his weight).
The Egyptians are famous for their fantastic engineering
feats. Isn't it foolish to try to duplicate them without
extensive knowledge and understanding of the field? ~Dan
Answer:
Our purpose was not to test how we could raise an obelisk, or
even how sophomore-level engineering math would help us raise
an obelisk, but how the ancient Egyptians might have done it.
Now it may be in fact that they had engineering and that
because we didn't have engineers on the team we were ignorant
of engineering skills and calculations that the ancient
Egyptians might have done. In our next attempt we still want
to stick to the task - not of completely replicating an
ancient Egyptians obelisk project (cause we can't do that
without replicating the entirety of Egyptian society) but we'd
like to once again try out particular tools, techniques, and
operations like loading a sled, like the tipping operation,
like raising it up on its pedestal. But we will have, in
addition to hands-on know how, an engineer on the project. So
we will always be checking that the engineering skills we
bring to bear when we're testing a particular tool, technique,
or operation are not exceeding the bounds of what was
available to the ancient Egyptians.
Question:
Are there any ancient records at all, however obscure or
fragmentary, on how obelisks were raised? ~Antonio
Answer:
We have no manuals for obelisk erection in ancient Egypt. And
there are no explicit scenes showing all the workmen that
would have been required to raise an obelisk. What we do have
are symbolic scenes of the king raising obelisks, because in a
sense all these assembled people and all these workers were an
expression of the king's personal body and might. So rather
than showing all the workers doing it they show the king doing
it and then of course it's just a symbolic representation; the
king has a rope around the obelisk and he is ritually pulling
it up. It looks very easy of course because the king in fact
in such scenes is nearly as tall or taller than the obelisk
that's shown. We have the Ansatasi Papyrus where one scribe
chides another one about his level of skill in figuring out
various kinds of operations, one of which is raising a
colossal statue of the king (not an obelisk), but it makes
some kind of an obscure reference to compartments containing
sand which is why those who favor the sandbox method point to
this. But aside from that Papyrus and the symbolic
representations, what we're left with is the evidence on the
ground in the way of the obelisk bases, the turning grooves,
the evidence of the unfinished obelisk in the quarry and the
evidence of the obelisk that is still standing in Egypt from
ancient times.
Question:
Is there any danger that when you manage to tip the obelisk
into its upright position that it will topple over the other
side from its momentum? ~Howard
Answer:
Yes. One of the things we did not learn from our experiment is
whether, even if we had successfully raised that obelisk, it
would have stood. When we quarried the obelisk from the quarry
using modern means, it was a bit banana shaped and one of the
things that must be required for an obelisk to stand upright
successfully with no attachment, simply standing on its own is
that it be plum - that is that the vertical axis of the
obelisk be straight and that the center of gravity in that
direction be fairly centered within the body of the obelisk so
that the weight isn't distributed to one side or the other.
The other point is that the vertical axis of the obelisk has
to be fairly perpendicular (I would imagine) to the base. Now
the base of an obelisk is fairly small. If you have bumps and
dimples in the base of the obelisk, it's going to make it
unsteady. So all those conditions have to be met and the
interesting question is, how did the ancient Egyptians
quarrying the obelisk by means of channels that they were
pounding out and then pounding it under and snapping it off at
the spine, during all of that how did they achieve an obelisk
that met all of these specifications.
Question:
Did all the effort that went into building these massive
monuments, like the pyramids and the obelisks, use up so many
resources that it was detrimental to society? ~Jack
Answer:
No, probably not. Certainly not with obelisks. By the time
that obelisks were set up Egyptian society was populous enough
and complex enough that raising the obelisk and quarrying it
and transporting it and then raising it was really probably
drawing on a large number of workers and resources but not so
many that it was actually a drain on society. Of course the
pyramids are different, especially the gigantic pyramids of
the early part of the pyramid age, like the pyramid of Khufu
at Giza. It's so huge that it must have drawn on resources
nationwide. But an interesting possibility is rather than it
draining resources, it actually had a nation-building effect
for Egypt because it was a socializing process where people
were brought from villages and communities throughout the land
to the center where they saw this Cecil B. De Mille epic of
hundreds, probably thousands of people working on this common
project. And the evidence we have is that most of these
laborers were seasonal and they worked for a certain stint, a
certain period of time, maybe a month, and then they were spun
off and replaced. Certainly there were skilled workers who
were there permanently. But to come into such a labor project,
to see instead of a few hundred people in your village
thousands of people, to be part of a nationwide project, and
then to be spun off again and return to your home - it must
have been a very powerful socializing experience. And rather
than it being detrimental to Egypt as a nation it actually may
have helped build Egypt as a nation.
Question:
It seems like working on a project like raising the obelisk or
building a pyramid would be, while hard, very rewarding. Can
you think of any projects today that would generate a similar
feeling? ~Mary
Answer:
You know, it's hard to think of projects today that would have
a similar feeling, because society is totally different today
than it was then. One of the most revealing operations in
NOVA's ancient technology series, I think, is the Incan
bridge-building operation, where the different families go out
on the hillside and they pick grass and they weave their grass
into segments of twine, and the different families combine
their segments or lines of twine into rope, and on the day of
building the bridges, the different families combine their
rope into big cables that the different villages donate to the
bridge, so that the bridge is really an intertwining or an
interweaving of all the different families, households, and
villages of that particular culture. There's some evidence
that in ancient time, monuments were built the same way, and
that pyramids in ancient Egypt were built by the turning out
of labor from teams from different communities. So when they
actually raise something like an obelisk, not only did you
have the enthusiasm and the excitement that we had from teams
from Luxor and a whole other team from Aswan chanting and
celebrating, but you had teams from all over the country.
Question:
What is the significance of the writing on the sides of the
obelisk? ~Jen
Answer:
Well, the writing varies. For the most part, it is the names
and titles of the kings who raised the obelisk. Kings have
five different names and various titles, and so that's by and
large what would decorate the sides of the obelisk, as well as
images of these kings giving offerings to the gods. As I said
in an earlier question, the obelisk kind of raised the king's
image up into the heavens, and being gilded with a combination
of gold and silver, called Electrum, and that blazing in the
sun, the king's image is literally combined with the images of
the gods up there in the sky as well as the King's names, all
aglow and glittering in Electrum. Hatshepsut, on her obelisk,
added something else. She added the whole story of how she
sent a team out to quarry the obelisk, transported, raised it
at the temple of Amman; that's in addition to her story about
how she went about raising these monuments.
Question:
When you go back, how many methods will you try? And will you
have the same amount of time and other constraints as you did
last time? ~Gene
Answer:
Well, we don't know for sure yet. We're still in the process
of talking about that. It would be nice to try to do a little
thinking so that our attempts to replicate an ancient Egyptian
operation are not constrained by a modern film and production
budget and time schedule, so that we at least give ourselves
enough time to try one or two or three things as thoroughly as
possible. One of the things we'd like to try in the future is
not just different ways of raising the obelisk, we'd actually
like to try to construct some kind of a boat that would test
how they might have transported the obelisk down the river of
Aswan.
Question:
Did working on this experiment make you feel at all like you
were able to get inside the minds of the ancient Egyptians?
~David
Answer:
Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure we can get inside
the minds of the ancient Egyptians, but let me tell you that
whatever the thoughts may be of popularizing ancient
technology by trying these replications of tools, techniques
and operations, whatever shortcuts we might have to take for a
modern, popular film production, nothing beats actually
getting your hand on limestone blocks that way, two or three
tons in building pyramids. We're actually getting face to face
with the granite in raising an obelisk. That's one of the real
values of these productions. In the film on obelisks, you saw
a bunch of men down in that trench that actually defined and
separated the unfinished obelisk. Until you actually get down
in that trench with a dolerite pounder that weighs five
kilograms, and you just for a few minutes swing it up and down
with your arms, you can't appreciate what human labor really
went into creating the monuments we see all over Egypt. We
didn't get so much in the minds, but we saw the physical
bedrock reality that they had to deal with—what
motivated them, what gave them their spirit of accomplishment,
what gave them the spirit that we saw in the men from Aswan
and Luxor who worked for just three weeks on this project.
Question:
What do you think accounts for people's fascination for all
things Egyptian, especially the pyramids? ~Francesca
Answer:
That's one of the most profound and difficult questions that
anyone could be asking. I've worked with the monuments of
ancient Egypt for 25 years now. I've spent years and years
with the pyramids, I've lived in Egypt for 13 years straight
before coming back to the United States, and still I don't
know the complete answer to that question. There's something
about ancient Egypt that has a pull on everyone in the modern
world, not just Americans, the Europeans, Japanese, people
worldwide. Various answers that I've tried out and worked to
some extent, but aren't completely satisfying, include that
the Egyptians were terrific designers. Something about the way
they depicted the human being, pyramids, the temples, the
obelisks, they were just great designers in an architectural
sense.
I think also part of the attraction of ancient Egypt is that
it's so very old. It's one of the earliest civilizations on
our planet. And it's so very big. Everything they did in their
monuments is big. The pyramids, the obelisks, the temples, the
statues, and they were able to do these very big things
because they had easy access to hard and soft stones,
limestone, granite, other kinds of stone. And so they could
build these colossal monuments in stone that survived the
ages. Whereas other civilizations, like the Sumerians, built
in mud brick, so we don't see their accomplishments as much.
Even in ancient times when the Greeks and Romans came to
Egypt, they were astounded by these skyscrapers. It's as
though you walked into Manhattan or something for ancient
times. These days, as civilization races towards some kind of
a future, we're not sure what, with such dramatic changes over
such short periods—automobiles, skyscrapers,
computers—I think we're filled with a lot of anxiety as
to where we're going. I think when we look back to times over
the horizon, when we feel a little bit lost in our own
civilization, there's something very appealing about this lost
ancient Egyptian civilization. Maybe we're looking for some
kind of an answer for what we're going through now. It's hard
to know. There's no quick easy answer to that question.
Question:
Do you know if there are any obelisks in private collections?
~Jon
Answer:
Well, if there are obelisks in private collections, I don't
think they're as big as the biggest obelisk that Ramses II
made. I don't think there are any obelisks hiding in private
collections anywhere. Obelisks started out as very small
monuments. Some of the oldest obelisks we know about are about
knee-high. They're made out of limestone and they were put in
front of the tombs of prominent households in the Old Kingdom,
noblemen and so on. There could be small obelisks like that
that could be in private collections.
Question:
When did the society that was responsible for building the
obelisk come to an end and what caused its downfall? ~Maura
Answer:
The society that was responsible for building the obelisk was
that of ancient Egypt. One easy way to think of this is that
ancient Egyptian civilization lasted from 3000 B.C. to 30 B.C.
That's about when Cleopatra IV died. However, the heyday of
obelisks was in the 18th Dynasty, Egypt's age of greatest
empire, and that came to an end about 1000 B.C. So the empire
gradually dissolved. Other great powers were on the rise, the
Assyrians and later the Persians and of course the Romans, and
just exactly why it fell into demise is a complicated
question. It's one of the kinds of questions that
archaeologists write Ph.D. dissertations about.
Question:
Do you think the Egyptians knew that the granite was extremely
durable and chose it for that reason or was it just the
material they had available to them? ~Marc
Answer:
No, Marc, they certainly knew that granite was durable. As a
matter of fact, granite probably had a very definite symbolic
magical significance for them. Just why the different kinds of
hard stone and soft stone that they built in were chosen for
various monuments we aren't sure. There's enough to suggest,
though, that there were magical reasons that we're missing,
that granite had a definite magical purpose, as did alabaster,
limestone, and the black granite and other hard stones like
dolorite. So there was probably a symbolic reason for the
stone that was chosen.
Question:
Why was the obelisk seated into the turning groove at a
32-degree slope? Was it because the breaking system was not
adequate? Solve this problem so that you can begin the raising
from a 45-degree or greater start point. Now, how about some
camels, oxen, horses, or elephants for some real power? Good
Luck, and Aloha from Maui!!! ~Gregory
Answer:
Yeah, OK, you�re right. We should have had the obelisk at more
than 32 degrees. Next time we hope to have it more like 45 or
even steeper. And we recognize that that's one of the
problems. We'll try to correct it next time. Camels and
elephants are out, because the ancient Egyptians didn't have
camels and elephants. But they did have oxen, although
probably in a delicate operation like moving the obelisk they
would have not have entrusted it to oxen, they would have used
manpower.
Question:
It seems to me if you can not pull the thing up why do you not
just push it up? I would tend to think that if you applied
force to the other side of the obelisk it could possibly go up
easier than if you pulled on it from the side you are. By the
way I loved the sand trap ideas. ~Craig
Answer:
I'm not sure what Craig means by pushing it up. It depends on
how the obelisk comes in on the other side, the opposite side
from the pullers. If it comes in lying down or nearly lying
down like Martin Eisler had it, then you can't push it. It's a
question of lifting. And even if it comes in at a 32-degree
slope or so, the way we did the big obelisk in the film, it's
still a question of lifting, not pushing. And the lifting, of
course, has to be done with levers. So I'm not quite sure what
Craig means by pushing.
Question:
The ancient Egyptians were the most prolific stone movers in
history. Is there any written history on how they may have
moved massive stones over large distances? I remember seeing a
show on TV where the stones were set in place by dragging them
over a hole filled with sand, the sand was then removed
through an access tunnel, and the stone was slowly set in
place. The effort required (by any method) to move the
Stonehenge stones over a 20-mile distance would have negated
any method of raising them that would have been considered a
gamble. Although your system worked, I believe the stones were
set into place with some type of dampening agent to ensure
that the stones were not damaged. What do you think?
~Lowell
Answer:
Is there any written history on how they may have moved
massive stones over long distances? The only depiction we have
of moving a very massive weight any distance is from the
Middle Kingdom, the 12th Dynasty: a tomb of a man named Jahuti
Hotep. And there is a scene in his tomb, or there was a scene,
it's very badly damaged now, of, I believe it's 172 men
pulling a very heavy, large, colossal statue. The statue is
estimated to have weighed 54 tons. So you have long lines of
men going off in different ropes. That's the only scene
depiction we have. We have text mentioning people who went to
quarries to get stones for pyramids, stones for obelisks,
stones for monuments, and in a number of cases we have
specifications of the boats that were built. I think there's a
man named Aneni who went to fetch an obelisk for Thutmoses I,
and he records, I believe, the construction of a barge to
transport it, that's about 3/4 the length and width, that is
the width is about 3/4 the length. And so we have inscriptions
like that, but nothing real detailed.
Question:
What is the estimated time (months, years) that it took the
ancient Egyptians to erect an obelisk (e.g., the largest one),
from the first chip in the quarry to the final touches of the
upright piece? ~Jon
Answer:
Hatsupsut records that it took her seven months to build her
obelisk in Karnak. I believe that would be the pair of which
one is still standing. And if I recall correctly that is the
total time she says it took to quarry, remove, transport and
raise the obelisk, seven months.
Question:
Rather than using a ramp composed of two straight sections,
why not use a parabolic curve in the second part of the ramp?
The parabolic part might help move the obelisk around since
the contact surface is reduced (though you'd need a much
stronger sled) and as the drop rate could be controlled, it
gives a better chance for the obelisk not to break upon
landing on the base. Furthermore, that might help position the
obelisk closer to vertical—then it would be easier to
pull to its completely vertical position. What do you think?
~Steven
Answer:
A parabolic curve, indeed, would reduce the amount of contact
between the obelisk and the ramp down to the pedestal. But it
probably would have been a bit difficult to construct that
parabolic curve out of mud brick, for example, or stone
rubble, or mud brick compartments filled with stone rubble and
debris, or filled with sand. And it's unlikely that they would
have built in stone simply to create a parabolic curve, since
most of the materials they used for secondary constructions,
like ramps and embankments and so on, were mud brick and
debris.
Question:
How did the Egyptians make the giant mounts of dirt? ~John
Answer:
Well, they probably transported most of the material simply
with men carrying baskets, the way workers carry dirt on
excavations today. It may seem astounding that they could have
carried enough debris, sand or dirt, for making these huge
embankments and ramps and so on. But in fact, that's what they
did. And they did it on a regular basis, not only for raising
large monuments, but for creating the dikes and canals on
which Egypt's irrigation, agriculture depended. So they were
very used to moving dirt, which they did for their basic
infrastructure all the time.
Question:
My husband and I sail a 42-foot sloop. On our mainsail, we
have a multiple-block system that allows me (at 130 lbs.) to
adjust our mainsail with one hand. The Egyptians were
accomplished boaters. Is there any evidence to suggest that
the Egyptians may have had similar technology? If so, could
you use it with your A-frame structure to lift the obelisk?
~Heather
Answer:
I believe it's very true that there should be important clues
in their nautical technology. I, myself, am not a boat person.
So I'm not totally conversant with a multiple block system,
which is what Heather is suggesting. But the A-frame, for
example, that's been suggested as a gaining, as allowing the
Egyptians to gain a mechanical advantage in lifting the
obelisk, the A-frame and the way it operates may have been
very similar to the way we see masts operating on early boats,
which are very narrow kinds of A-frames, in fact. It's not a
single piece. It seems to be two pieces, with cross pieces
like a very narrow A-frame. And I think the end plate is a
very good one, that the way they raised these heavy masts and
other aspects of nautical technology probably holds clues as
to how they did heavy weights like obelisks. In our next
production, we hope to be having not only an engineer, but
also an ancient boat specialist on the scene. Not just to try
various ways of transporting the obelisk on a boat, but maybe
also to give us insight into lifting operations, as Heather
suggests, on land, for raising these heavy weights.
Question:
Weren't a lot of obelisks put up two at a time? If so, then
couldn't a lowering platform for one obelisk be used as a
raised level workman platform for the second obelisk?
Efficient use of mud-brick with no need for A-frames.
~Dennis
Answer:
Weren't a lot of obelisks put up two at a time? Well, whatever
ramps and embankments they used for raising one obelisk
probably were used for two when the obelisks were put up in
pairs. And quite often they were. In our operation we had a
great pit between two ramp sections. And the pit—of
course at the bottom of the pit, you had the base of the
obelisk. And the pit was for the tipping and then raising
operation. They would have had to move the pit, obviously, or
else had two pits, but that was no problem. They could have
filled them in. So yes, indeed, they could have built one
great ramp embankment system, sloping up from both sides, or
to either side of the temple pylon, with this great entrance.
And when they wanted to, they probably would have had to have
raised the obelisk then in sequence, doing the farthest one
first, putting it down into its pit, if that's the method they
used. And then there it stood, you see. And then the other one
from the direction that the obelisks were being brought in,
would have been brought in and set up. Obviously, you couldn't
have one obelisk standing and being in the way of the other
one. That would imply that if they did use one ramp embankment
system, it also suggests something about the order in which
the two obelisks were put up.
Question:
I have a book called "Babylon Mystery Religion—Ancient
and Modern" by Ralph Woodrow that includes a chapter on
obelisks. On chapter five, page 34, the obelisk at St. Peter's
Square at the Vatican is depicted in an old drawing being
raised inside an elaborate giant scaffold-like structure
surrounding the obelisk lifting with ropes from the top. I
can't tell, but pulleys, which certainly increase the
mechanical advantage, may be at the top of the structure.
Would this technology have been available to the Ancient
Egyptians? ~Chris
Answer:
There is some evidence that the Egyptians had a pulley-like
device as early as the Middle Kingdom. Whether these pulleys
would have been useful in moving heavy weights like obelisks
is doubtful, because as Roger Hopkins points out, a pulley is
a wheel, and the wheel is only as good as its axle. And until
you have iron and steel you just can't get a strong enough
axle to have a pulley taking and distributing weight on the
scale of 400 and 300 tons, which is what the largest obelisks
weigh.
Question:
Could the structures shown near the obelisk have been used to
erect them? A drum connected to the nearby structure could be
used to wind up a rope, thereby lifting the obelisk into
position. This would require the technology of turning the
drug (or roller) as the method of propulsion (like a
come-along) instead of pulling the object with ropes and using
the rollers only as a way to reduce friction. Did they have
this technology? ~Ed
Answer:
While it's been suggested that the structures near the obelisk
might have been used to erect them, some people have suggested
in fact that the temple pylons, the great front wall of the
temple that stood right behind the obelisk, or in front of
which the obelisks were raised, that that pylon could have
been used as a lifting platform for ropes and men. The problem
is that the turning grooves aren't on that side of the
pedestals of the obelisks. The turning grooves are usually
perpendicular to the front of the temple, so that the obelisks
were brought in alongside the temple, front temple wall. It's
probable then that none of the giant statues or the front wall
of the temple was very useful in raising the
obelisk—that temporary banks, embankments and ramps
would have been used.
Question:
Do you believe the ancient Egyptians saw the obelisks as holy?
Also, as I watched your show someone said that the ancient
cities were built to last through eternity. What was the logic
behind that question? Did the Egyptians actually believe their
empire would last forever? ~James
Answer:
Well, did the Egyptians believe their empire would last
forever? Yes, they did. They expressed that wish again and
again. They believed their empire, their temples, the great
Karnak temple and these obelisks would stand forever. They had
two words for "forever." One was djet, which means permanently
forever. And the other is Neheh, which means continuously
forever, for all the cycles of time. In other words, forever
and ever. Now I mean somebody who might have been a skeptical
person in ancient Egypt might have wondered if in fact that
was the case. And we do have some skeptical literature from
the ancient Egyptians themselves. Once their civilization had
lasted from 2,000 years or more, they began looking back and
seeing some of the earlier structures that their ancestors had
built already in ruins. So they weren't dummies. They could
see that things fell apart. It's an interesting question
though, because we could ask it about ourselves. Has any of us
thought whether the World Trade Towers in New York City are
supposed to last forever? What is the planned obsolescence of
a skyscraper? What is the planned obsolescence of say,
Manhattan or downtown Los Angeles? Do we think these things
will last forever?
Question:
Make an A-frame, put the crossbar 3/4 of the way down. Then
attach ropes to the obelisk (at the top) and to the A frame
(at the top). Now attach more ropes to the crossbar, have your
volunteer crew pull these. This will increase your leverage
and multiply your pulling power 3 times. This should be more
than enough to right the obelisk. (name withheld by
request)
Answer:
Well, we certainly believe that there are many more
possibilities with either one or multiple A-frames, and that
we can in fact, increase our leverage and gain a greater
mechanical advantage. And that's one of the things that we're
going to be trying when we go back to continue to try to raise
the obelisk.
Question:
Could the wooden support that the obelisk rests on, as it is
dragged to its resting point, have wheels at its base
(somewhat like a dolly), so when it is in the tilting slot or
groove, it would be easier to put upright (like our arm and
elbow), then when it's in position, burn the support dolly at
the same time making settling adjustments. (name withheld by
request)
Answer:
Well, here we have a suggestion about wheels again, that maybe
it could have been on some kind of platform and then it was
wheeled into place. Once again we come back to the notion, as
we were talking about with pulleys. A pulley is a wheel, and
it's like all wheels, the wheel is only as good as its axle.
And in order to carry really heavy loads, wheel systems like
great semi-trucks and so on, have very powerful axles, to say
nothing of their engines, and so on. But the axles and the
frame of a flatbed truck, a mach truck or a semi with very
heavy weight—they're very powerful. Of course it's made
out of hard iron and steel. Without iron and steel it's hard,
I believe, to make a wheel system that will carry a heavy
load. That's not to say the Egyptians didn't have the wheel.
They certainly did. It's just that it was not adaptable to
carrying very heavy loads, because they did not have that,
they were not that fluent in the use of iron, and certainly
they did not have steel. Iron really comes in in a big way
about the 26th Dynasty. That's the earliest that it's there in
a big way. We have examples of iron before that. So iron is
not really there, prevalent much before say 525 B.C.
Question:
I think if they used a column or wheel of significant weight
to roll down a ramp a precise distance and speed with said
wheel or column winding up pulling ropes as it travels. I
think diameter of wheel plus weight of wheel plus angle of
said ramp, plus using A-frame would lift obelisk. ~Marc
Answer:
Marc is talking about a wheel again, but I think it's a
slightly different suggestion. It's not so much a suggestion
of using a wheel with an axle. But another idea is to make
heavy stones themselves wheels of sorts by putting wood pieces
against the sides of the stone block for example, the wood
pieces being rounded so that when you put four of them around
four sides of a block, you actually created a wheel out of the
block, and then you can roll it along. I mean that's more
feasible with stone blocks for pyramids, but probably not
feasible at all for a long tapering obelisk. I'm not sure if
that's what Marc is suggesting, but it reminds me of that
suggestion at any rate.
Question:
I would like to throw in my two cents about how to float the
obelisk. Did you forget that the Nile is only recently the
victim of human flood control? Ancient solution: build a
drydock on the flood plain. Tie a barge off atop the drydock.
Load the obelisk during the dry season. Wait for the
floods—float away. Tie up at a similar facility down
river. Wait for waters to recede. Unload the obelisk.
Stone/rock piers aside the drydock would help in on/off
loading. ~Saxon
Answer:
Well, we're back to that suggestion we were suggesting earlier
about building a drydock on the flood plain. And I think it's
a very good suggestion. And it's something that it would be
nice for us to try. In order to try this, since the Nile basin
of which I spoke, the flood basin that held the water for six
to eight weeks out of every year when the Nile flooded its
banks, these basins no longer flood. The dikes and levees of
course are no longer in repair because just the high dams, the
Egyptian Nile Valley no longer floods. So in order to test
this idea, which I think is a good one, we'll have to create
our own drydock in our own little basin and somehow try to
have it flooded. It could be a whole operation involving pumps
and so on. We'll see what we can do when we get back to Aswan.
Question:
On the show, the obelisk is left unraised. Was the obelisk
ever raised? The show is several years old; have there been
any new discoveries that show how the ancients raised a
400-ton obelisk? (name withheld by request)
Answer:
Will the obelisk ever be raised? I don't know that there have
been any new discoveries about how they raised obelisks. The
interesting thing is that most of the theories were already on
hand before we did our show. It's very rare, if ever, that
people have done the kind of experimental archaeology where
you actually go out and pull these heavy weights and raise
them and so on. I'd like to emphasize again that in the shows,
this whole pyramid and obelisks that we did with the ancient
technology series with NOVA we were not doing 100 percent
replications of ancient pyramid building or obelisk raising.
We were trying specific tools, techniques and operations to
gain greater insight and I think we did. I don't think we can
actually make much progress on new theories without that kind
of experimentation. Nobody has ever tried to raise an ancient
Egyptian obelisk using the ancient tools, techniques and
operations before. And I know that they haven't done it since,
or at least as far as I know no one has. That may be one of
the reasons why there have been no new insights in the few
years since we did the obelisk film. Our hope is that we'll
come up with some new insights and possibly even some new
theories when we go back to Aswan and give it another try.
Explore Ancient Egypt
|
Raising the Obelisk |
Meet the Team
Dispatches |
Pyramids |
E-Mail |
Resources
Classroom Resources
| Site Map |
Mysteries of the Nile Home
Editor's Picks
|
Previous Sites
|
Join Us/E-mail
|
TV/Web Schedule
About NOVA |
Teachers |
Site Map |
Shop |
Jobs |
Search |
To print
PBS Online |
NOVA Online |
WGBH
©
| Updated November 2000
|
|
|